T1B

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:56 am**

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-trump ... ction.html

I guess he was too busy reading "Two Corinthians" to be bothered with reading Mark 12:17.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:14 am**

Wait...he's a badge-sucker just like you...

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:20 am**

Maybe you didn't get the memo. Real estate, particularly in the U&R is a volatile bidness. Some years you make a ton of money. Other years you lose your ass.

It is a long known fact that the Donald had some pretty rough years in the early 90s after the real estate bubble burst right around 89-90. This was kind of a regional thing that the U&Rers and the socals remember well. In fact, it was a worse drop than the great recession drop, but it wasn't as wide spread.

If the Donald had the slightest bit of debating skills he could have explained this to Hillary during the debate. I would have explained to her that in the business world there is risk. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. And this FACT is the primary reason why taxing profits at high rates is a really bad idea. Why take part in such a risky system when you get whacked hard in the years you do well. Of course if you live in the quarter million dollar a pop speech world, you are oblivious to this fact. Bill and Hillary live in this world, the other 7 billion people on the planet don't. And then there is their other business, the Clinton Foundation where super rich assholes the world over dump billions into their coffers, out of the goodness of their hearts, no doubt, and they are nice enough to pass 6% of it on to the less fortunate. The best part of this is where they take some of those sweet speaking fees and "donate" them to themselves for a nice tax break.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:04 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
Diego: "I'm going to Kohl's, I just heard boys pant's are half off"

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:33 pm**

Scott wrote:The level of hypocrisy of your average Libtard is amazing

Libtard: "Trump didn't pay taxes"

Normal person: "Hey Libtard, do you take itemized deductions on your taxes?"

Libtard: "yes"

Normal person: "well your doing the same thing - following the tax code"

Not to mention, Diego has not shown any proof that The Don did not pay taxes.
Just conjecture that a NY Times Pajama Boy has placed in front of his eyes.

Donald Trump's business losses in 1995 were so large that they could have allowed him to avoid
paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years, according to records obtained by The New York Times.

But the records obtained by the Times show losses of such a magnitude that they potentially allowed
Trump to avoid paying taxes for years, possibly until the end of the last decade.

And on and on with the moronic speculation...

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:53 pm**

I think we can be fairly certain that if the possibility of not paying taxes was presented to Donald Trump that taxes would not have been paid.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:26 pm**

Do you pay extra fed taxes, just to make sure you are covering your "fair share"?

If you do, you are a weapons grade moron.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that over the course of his life, The Donald has paid more in fed/state income tax than the rest of us combined. I'll even guess that he's paid more than Hillary.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:28 pm**

The question is whether or not Donald Trump went twenty years or so without paying taxes. I don't have to pay extra to make sure I am paying my fair share.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:53 pm**

Are you guys really going to put me to sleep with tax law. I understand the mechanics of the law. We are not debating whether or not Donald Trump should go to jail. We're talking about simple equity. The law allows him to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying his losses and then also allows him to claim those losses against taxes to be paid. You think this system is logical?

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:56 pm**

It's a shame we can't just put Ted Cruz or Newt or 88 into a Trump suit and let him sit in during the debates. Trump could have clowned Hillary by explaining these econ 101 principles to her. He could have also pointed out that Shillary probably paid taxes every year because when you are in the bidness of pay for play and 1/4 mil a pop speeches, there is never a down year. He should also explain to her how this concept of "risk" is the reason why high tax rates kill economic activity. Why the fukk would anyone risk their $$$$ if the outcome possibilities were up to 100% loss or keeping half of your gain? Given those options, many folks will say fuggit and put it in tax free muni-bonds. They don't pay much, but they do pay.

Another thing the Donald needs to harp on and he did touch on it somewhat, is the laughable rates the fed has imposed over the past 8 years. Yeah, a 3% mortgage is pretty sweet to someone with a large mortgage, but it is artificially low and it comes with saving/bond rates of damn near zero.

Over my entire life, the fed manipulated this rate to serve as a throttle of sorts for the economy. When the economy slowed a bit, the fed would crack the throttle open a hair. As the ecomomy heated up, the fed would throttle back a bit with a slight increase in the rate. During this period mortgages were typically 6-8%, except when things went all fukked up during the carter years. And savings rates were a few points lower. What we have had since the great recession is the fed going to WFO (wide fukking open) on the economic throttle. In the past this would have resulted in crazy economic growth and they would quickly jack the rates to keep us from spiralling into hyper-inflation. But our tax/regulation choked economy hasn't responded that way. We have had 8 years of the fed whipping the economy for all it's worth. The result, a sputtering 1-1.5% "growth". Of course the dems cite this as historical unprecedented continuous "growth". technically it is. There hasnt been any dips because, well, when you are still in the bottom of the ditch, it is hard to dip. At least we haven't done what the euros and japs have. They are so fukked that WFO on the throttle ain't enough to even hold steady. Those fukkers have went to the nitrous bottle of negative interest. If things keep on as they have, I suspect we'll be taking a hit of NAWZ as well.

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:08 pm**

How do negative interest rates accelerate the economy?

Posted: **Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:54 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:How do negative interest rates accelerate the economy?

They don't. They only provide another means for the government to monitor you and control you and your finances.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:01 am**

Rooster wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:How do negative interest rates accelerate the economy?
They don't. They only provide another means for the government to monitor you and control you and your finances.

In the short term, they force consumption which generates economic activity. They also encourage borrowing, which leads to more economic activity. In the long run, they are fukk it up. It's economic heroin. It generates a short term nice buzz.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:44 am**

Roach wrote:quantitative

pray for him

:cry:

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:56 am**

Roach wrote:Kinda like quantitative easing, aka printing money.

Exactly. The fed has been pulling money out of thin air to keep this house of cards rolling. I suspect that no matter who wins, next year's gonna be rough, economically. Not that the prior 8 were much better.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:10 pm**

He's just trying to be FAIR, you cold heartless rich bastard!!!!!

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:22 pm**

BSmack wrote:Are you guys really going to put me to sleep with tax law. I understand the mechanics of the law. We are not debating whether or not Donald Trump should go to jail. We're talking about simple equity. The law allows him to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying his losses and then also allows him to claim those losses against taxes to be paid. You think this system is logical?

^^^^ Gets it.

No, tRump didn't do anything wrong. The question that remains is why wasn't it illegal.

The answer is the Golden Rule. Citizens United, anyone?

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:24 pm**

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:16 pm**

Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with tax law. You're channeling your inner LTS there, DiS, by tying anything and everything to the beating of your pet dead horse.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:29 pm**

88 wrote:
BSmack wrote:The question is whether or not Donald Trump went twenty years or so without paying taxes. I don't have to pay extra to make sure I am paying my fair share.
If you lost nearly a billion dollars (i.e., had loss instead of income) during a tax year, and the tax code permits you to carry some of that loss forward to offset income earned in future years (which it does), how would you not be paying your fair share in the years you offset income lawfully on the basis of the loss carried forward from a prior year?

Maybe that concept is too difficult for you. Let's suppose that in Year 1, you earn $100,000, and you pay $25,000 in federal income taxes. You do this in Years 2, 3, 4 and 5. You've earned $500,000 over those five years, and paid income taxes of $125,000. You've been putting the money you didn't pay in taxes to work in an investment (real estate, perhaps?). In year 6, the investment goes bust. You lose everything. The property is worthless in the market. Could have occurred, for example, because your investment was in an Atlantic City Casino and surrounding states relaxed their gambling laws and so competition sprang up in surrounding areas that crushed your investment. You now have a loss of $500,000 in Year 6. No taxes due that year because you did not earn any income. But you are industrious, and you get back on your feet. In years 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 you manage to earn $100,000 in income each year. The tax code says that you can carry forward the loss from Year 6 to offset the income in years 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. You have no federal income tax due those years. And guess what, if you add up all of your income and losses from Years 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, your income over that period is $0, and so is your federal tax liability.

Interesting. About 30 years ago a former employer of mine decided to make changes to their 401K plan, which allowed me as an ex-employee to withdraw my money (roughly $5-6,000) without penalty, but facing income tax consequences. Back then, $25,000 was a decent annual salary, and that 401K money would cover the down payment on a $50,000 house (which I sold 15 years later for $165,000).

I went to chat with a friend-of-a-friend CPA. He amended my previous 4 years of federal returns and did income averaging to spread the 5 grand over 5 years. Saved me significant tax money. Of course income averaging was eliminated years ago. For the little people anyway.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:58 pm**

We need a businessperson as president, one who has the business acumen to lose $1B in a year in order to reduce his taxes in future years.

Genius I tell you. Tremendous, spectacular genius. YUGE genius.

And don't forget courageous. Tremendously, spectacularly courageous.

Hopefully he'll being Rudy G along as the secretary of the new cabinet Department of Blithering Iodicy.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:20 pm**

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:07 pm**

Democrat mentality: If you are a Clinton and write off the tax expense of your illegal server you're presidential material. If you are a lowly governmental staffer and use an unauthorized email device, you're fired.

Posted: **Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:12 pm**

KC Scott wrote:

Fat, Bald and stupid is no way to go through life....

You're absolutely right. Purse carrying man gazer is a much better way to go.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:31 am**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Interesting. About 30 years ago a former employer of mine decided to make changes to their 401K plan, which allowed me as an ex-employee to withdraw my money (roughly $5-6,000) without penalty, but facing income tax consequences. Back then, $25,000 was a decent annual salary, and that 401K money would cover the down payment on a $50,000 house (which I sold 15 years later for $165,000).

Interesting? More like a bald faced fabrication or exaggeration.

There isn't a house in your 'hood that would sell for $165,000 then or now.

Admit it, you were making numbers up on the fly as you typed that bullshit out.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:46 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Interesting. About 30 years ago a former employer of mine decided to make changes to their 401K plan, which allowed me as an ex-employee to withdraw my money (roughly $5-6,000) without penalty, but facing income tax consequences. Back then, $25,000 was a decent annual salary, and that 401K money would cover the down payment on a $50,000 house (which I sold 15 years later for $165,000).
Interesting? More like a bald faced fabrication or exaggeration.

There isn't a house in your 'hood that would sell for $165,000 then or now.

Admit it, you were making numbers up on the fly as you typed that bullshit out.

No, Whitey, those are the facts. It's a very desirable older neighborhood. The house had a view of one of our lakes. It sold 4 years ago for $235,000.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:58 pm**

Not for nothing, but even Rochester has million dollar houses.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:35 pm**

Whitey may have been deep into the Bud Light last night. His post didn't make a lot of sense. $165,000 wasn't exactly a mansion back then. We then built a brand new 3-bedroom ranch for $180,000. It's now worth $225,000. Whoo-hoo.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:51 pm**

You'll have to excuse wags for thinking anything into the 6 digits is a mansion. Even casa smackaholic with its scattered yard tool landscaping motif would bring well north of 165K. We are actually looking at doing a basement level garage with great room above on the side which would probably get it into the upper 200s. Well, maybe not quite upper, but at least well into the 200s. Of course it would cost 60K or better to do and we are kind of enjoying the whole no mortgage thing and aren't quite ready to give up.

As for anything in crapchester being a mil, I could see it....on the lake. Beyond that, I suspect that most are in the 75K and down range. Our CNY tech buys single families in the 'cuse and rents them out. Says he can buy modest ranches in need of a facelift for 30-35K, so for a 40-50K investment he can rent them for 700 a month. Given the interest rates, that is a decent investment.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:59 pm**

KC Scott wrote:The difference being of course that you really ARE fat, bald and stupid

chalk one up for reality tubby

You really should try to come up with something original, instead of ~~licking~~...err ripping off Goob's bread and butter response.

And while I'm at it, your denial of reality is a nice Donald Trump imitation. Unfortunately, for you, that doesn't make it go away.

That's a really tremendous, wonderful, very fashionable man-purse you're sporting there.

That one was easy to find. I don't keep a spreadsheet like some posters here do, but anybody who's been around for any length of time remembers your terrific, super-classy

Lift and Steam

sessions with ucant. I'm not saying that it actually happened, but many people are saying that it did. And it was so beautiful.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:44 pm**

smackaholic wrote:As for anything in crapchester being a mil, I could see it....on the lake.

On the lake, on East Avenue, and Brighton, Pittsford and Mendon. Rochester has some wealthy people.

Beyond that, I suspect that most are in the 75K and down range. Our CNY tech buys single families in the 'cuse and rents them out. Says he can buy modest ranches in need of a facelift for 30-35K, so for a 40-50K investment he can rent them for 700 a month. Given the interest rates, that is a decent investment.

There is not much housing in Rochester's suburban neighborhoods that is in the 75k or less range. You'll see a lot more from 75k to 125k. And even more from 125k to 200k.

In the city there are 5 neighborhoods with good housing stock, South Wedge, 19th Ward, East and Park Avenue/NOTA, Corn Hill and Winton/Browncroft. The rest is the sub 75k junk that you think we all live in.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:47 pm**

KC Scott wrote:The difference being of course that you really ARE fat, bald and stupid

chalk one up for reality tubby

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:30 pm**

Wow...THE Rolling Stones. That's absolutely tremendous and beautiful.

Nice try, though. Purse carrying man gazers at Rolling Stones concerts are still purse carrying man gazers.

Your level of smack, BTW, is right up there with Arch Angel's, i.e. you probably think it's still "fresh" 15 years after it ceased being "fresh." That and your musical taste.

Carry on (have a take...don't suck).

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:51 pm**

I didn't mention the skanks you apparently hang out with because I wanted to be nice, not to be offensive about somebody I don't even know.

I really took the high ground where I had the opportunity to go very, very low. And I’m proud of myself for doing that.

I think that took a lot of courage in so many regards.

And, BTW, you've never seen my wife. I have the intelligence and consideration not have ever posted her picture here and expose her to the ridicule of morons like you.
You, obviously, couldn't give a shit.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:02 pm**

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:04 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Fuckin' A.

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:02 pm**

KC Scott wrote:

Posted: **Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:54 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Even casa smackaholic with its scattered yard tool landscaping motif would bring well north of 165K.

Anybody who would pay 165k for house with a "foundation" that could be felled in 3 minutes by a rock hammer like in Shawshank Redemption... is probably delusional and stupid enough to sink another 60k into a "basement" (I'm laughing while typing that) addition.

After all, you spent big $$$ building a deck that will still be standing long after that "foundation" (

again) crumbles into a cloud of dust and 2-ply drywall powder.

I suggest that if you're going to do any more home improvements, invest in covering and enclosing that deck, top and bottom.

You may be living on and under that deck soon.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:43 am**

KC Scott wrote:I was with more hot women in my first 30 years than any 3 of board slugs combined ( As long as one of the 3 isn't Dins).

I would go ahead and call bullshit, but then I'm not a slug, so who knows.

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:45 am**

Mikey wrote:
KC Scott wrote:The difference being of course that you really ARE fat, bald and stupid

chalk one up for reality tubby
You really should try to come up with something original, instead of ~~licking~~...err ripping off Goob's bread and butter

Bread and butter. Always thinking about food. No wonder you're so fucking fat.

T1B

Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight

Re: Damn Those 47%'ers Not Pulling Their Weight